This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats dot d dot wichmann at intel dot com>
- To: "Alan Cox" <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>, "Matt Taggart" <taggart at carmen dot fc dot hp dot com>
- Cc: "Benjamin Kosnik" <bkoz at redhat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <anderson at freestandards dot org>, <lsb-wg at freestandards dot org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:03:36 -0700
- Subject: RE: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
This looks like it needed a clarification, apologies if it didn't:
>The LSB is supposed to consider both the community and the vendors. The
>vendors have a current position and its clear that the vendor position
>is v5. The glibc and g++ development world apparently prefers v6. They
>don't go away by not being "runtime implementors" or not having votes
>that count in the LSB.
Anyone who wants an LSB workgroup vote can qualify through a relatively
low threshold of participation. That's in place only as an "educated
voter" measure, not to try to keep people out. There's no "membership"
or other barrier and you certainly don't have to be a vendor. The
workgroup tries not to get to where votes are needed very often,
however, so this rarely even comes up.